*^3  9^ 


Flci 


e "T-a 


1 , 


THE  WORLD  CONFERENCE  FOR  THE  CONSIDERATION  OF 
QUESTIONS  TOUCHING  FAITH  AND  ORDER 


A WORLD  MOVEMENT  FOR 
CHRISTIAN  UNITY 

BY  THE 

Rev.  LEFFERD  M.  A.  HAUGHWOUT 

I 


' Iva  irdvres  Kadihs  <ti,  irdrep,  kv  kiwi  K&yii  kv  aoL,  iva  Kal 

airrol  kv  rj/uv  kv  &aiv,  tva  6 Kka/Mi  TTLO'Tekia'rj  6ti  ai  /xe  dir^tTreiXas. 

Ut  omnes  unum  sint,  sicut  tu  Pater  in  me,  et  ego  in  te,  ut  et 
ipsi  in  nobis  unum  sint,  ut  credat  mundus,  quia  tu  me  misisti. 

That  they  all  may  be  one  ; as  thou.  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I in 
thee,  that  they  also  may  he  one  in  us;  that  the  world  may  believe 
that  thou  hast  sent  me. 


PRINTED  FOR  THE  COMMISSION  OF 
THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 
A.D.  1914 


[ 26] 


Copies  of  this  and  of  any  other  pubhcations  by  the 
Commission  may  be  had  free  on  application  to  the 
Secretary,  Robert  H.  Gardiner,  Gardiner,  Maine, 
U.  S.  A. 

Names  are  not  entered  on  the  permanent  mailing 
list  to  which  all  publications  are  sent,  unless  the 
Secretary  receives  a personal  request;  but  the  Com- 
mission is  glad  to  enter  on  that  list  all  who  will  write 
to  the  Secretary  that  they  desire  to  receive  future 
publications. 

Please  give  name  and  address  legibly,  with  any 
proper  prefix  or  title,  such  as  Reverend,  Mrs.,  or 
Miss. 


A WORLD  MOVEMENT  FOR  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 
By  the  Rev.  Lefferd  M.  A.  Haughwout 

RECTOR  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH  (pROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL),  MEADVILLE,  PA. 

[This  paper  is  deemed  worthy  of  publication  by  the  Commission  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  on  a World  Conference  on  Faith  and  Order,  which,  however, 
does  not  hold  itself  responsible  for  any  statement  or  opinion  therein  expressed.  ] 

I.  Conditions  and  Motives 

ON  the  nineteenth  day  of  October,  1910,  at  the  General  Con- 
vention of  the  Episcopal  Church,  assembled  at  Cincinnati, 
the  Rev.  William  T.  Manning,  D.D.,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church, 
New  York  City,  introduced  the  following  momentous  resolution : 

“Whereas,  There  is  to-day  among  all  Christian  people  a grow- 
ing desire  for  the  fulfilment  of  our  Lord’s  prayer  that  all  His  dis- 
ciples may  be  one ; that  the  world  may  believe  that  God  has  sent 
Him: 

“Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring.  That  a Joint  Com- 
mission be  appointed  to  bring  about  a Conference  for  the  con- 
sideration of  questions  touching  Faith  and  Order,  and  that  all 
Christian  Communions  throughout  the  world  which  confess  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  God  and  Saviour  be  asked  to  unite  with  us 
in  arranging  for  and  conducting  such  a Conference.” 

This  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted  by  both  the  House 
of  Bishops  and  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  and  the 
Commission  was  appointed,  with  the  Rt.  Rev.  Charles  P.  Ander- 
son, D.D.,  Bishop  of  Chicago,  as  its  president.  Immediately  upon 
its  passage,  a prominent  layman  of  New  York  pledged  the  sum 
of  S100,000  to  enable  the  Commission  to  carry  on  its  work. 

The  significance  of  the  action  will  be  recognized  when  it  is 
considered  that  this  is  the  first  time  since  the  break-up  of  the 
sixteenth  century  that  a definite  proposal  has  been  made  for  all 
Christian  bodies  throughout  the  world  to  come  together  for  the 
discussion  of  their  differences,  with  no  other  prescribed  limitation 
than  that  of  unswerving  loyalty  to  their  Divine  Lord  and  Master. 
Proposals  of  unity  have  indeed  been  made  heretofore,  notably  by 
His  Holiness  Leo  XHI,  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  the  Bishops 

[.3  ] 


Origin  of  the 
Movement 


Its  Signifi- 
cance 


of  the  Anglican  Communion,  by  the  Presbyterians  and  the  Con- 
gregationalists  of  our  own  country ; but  such  proposals  have  never 
been  more  than  expressions  of  willingness  to  discuss  the  subject  of 
unity  with  any  who  so  desire,  and  generally  they  have  been  accom- 
panied by  platforms  of  limitations.  Pope  Leo  let  it  be  known  that 
the  only  unity  to  be  considered  was  unity  under  the  Papacy;  the 
Anglican  bishops  prescribed  the  quadrilateral  programme  of  the 
Bible,  the' Creeds,  the  Sacraments,  and  the  Historic  Episcopate; 
while  the  Presbyterians,  upon  one  occasion  at  least,  excluded  any 
discussion  of  the  question  of  the  ministry.  The  proposal  which 
is  now  made,  however,  and  for  the  first  time,  is  that  we  come  to- 
gether to  discuss  the  questions  of  Faith  and  Order  which  divide 
us  with  no  other  condition  than  that  of  faith  in  the  Person  of 
Jesus  Christ.  This  does  not  mean  that  everything  else  is  waived 
as  of  no  importance,  or  that  any  ecclesiastical  body  will  be  com- 
mitted upon  any  point  by  the  action  of  the  Conference;  but  that 
representatives  of  different  bodies  may  meet  together,  as  the  lan- 
guage of  a later  resolution  of  the  Commission  states,  “for  the 
definite  purpose  of  considering  those  things  in  which  we  differ,  in 
the  hope  that  a better  understanding  of  divergent  views  of  Faith 
and  Order  will  result  in  a deepened  desire  for  reunion,  and  in  offi- 
cial action  on  the  part  of  the  separate  Communions  themselves.” 

Breadth  of  The  extreme  breadth  of  this  proposal  is  evident.  It  is  a plat- 

Proposal  form  so  constructed,  both  in  principle  and  in  its  careful  choice  of 
language,  that  it  includes  all  orthodox  Christian  bodies,  both  Cath- 
olic and  Protestant.  All  may  participate  without  any  sacrifice  of 
cherished  principle.  The  Ambassadors  of  the  Papacy,  the  Bishops 
of  the  Anglican  Communion  and  of  the  great  Eastern  Churches, 
and  the  representative  ministers  of  the  Protestant  denomina- 
tions, can  freely  participate  without  fear  of  misunderstanding. 
So  sincerely  desirous  was  the  Convention  of  maintaining  this 
principle,  that  it  expressly  stipulated  in  its  resolution  that  other 
representative  Commissions  should  be  asked  to  unite  in  the  work 
of  arranging  for  and  conducting  the  Conference.  So  that  when  the 
great  Conference  finally  meets  it  will  not  meet  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  or  of  any  other  church.  Having  once 
initiated  the  movement,  the  Episcopal  Church  withdraws  any 

[ 4 ] 


claim  for  leadership,  and  merges  her  Commission  with  the  greater 
central  Commission  which  will  equally  represent  all  participating 
Communions. 

In  view  of  this  significant  movement  for  a World  Conference  Attention 
of  Christendom  to  consider  the  questions  of  Faith  and  Order  challenged 
which  now  divide  us,  it  is  well  that  all  Christian  people  should  ac- 
quaint themselves  with  the  great  facts  and  principles  which  are 
involved.  For  though  all  of  us  may  not  participate  as  individuals 
in  the  deliberations  of  this  great  Conference,  whenever  and  wher- 
ever it  may  be  held,  yet  the  question  must  ultimately  come  back  to 
us,  both  as  individuals  and  as  organized  Chi’istian  Communions: 

“Are  you  ready  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  Master’s  prayer,  that  all 
His  disciples  may  be  one,  that  the  world  may  believe  that  God  has 
sent  Him.'’” 

To  the  end  of  inviting  attention  to  some  of  the  more  important 
facts  and  principles  concerned,  let  us  consider,  first  of  all,  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  Christendom,  and  the  motives  which  are  impell- 
ing the  world  movement  for  unity;  secondly,  the  many  difficulties 
and  dangers  which  obstruct  the  way;  and  thirdly,  let  us  endeavor 
to  point  out  some  of  the  broad  general  principles  which  must  be 
taken  into  consideration  in  arriving  at  an  effective  and  permanent 
condition  of  unity.  (The  writer  has  no  ready-made  solution  of  the 
great  problem  to  offer.  That  can  come  only  after  it  has  been  stud- 
ied and  prayed  over  from  the  many  standpoints  of  those  who  are 
to  participate  in  the  Conference.  But  he  believes  that  out  of  that 
common  study  and  common  prayer  the  hand  of  Divine  guidance 
will  point  a way  which  will  ultimately  lead  to  a healing  of  our 
unhappy  divisions.) 

Before  undertaking  to  cure  a patient,  the  physician  must  first  The  First  Re- 
diagnose  the  disease  and  know  something  of  the  causes  which  quirement 
induced  it.  The  healing  of  the  wounds  of  Christendom,  likewise, 
must  first  be  preceded  by  a dispassionate,  and  at  the  same  time 
sympathetic,  knowledge  of  the  conditions  out  of  which  they  came 
into  being.  Fortunately,  the  “scientific  temper,”  which  distin- 
guishes the  present  generation,  has  so  cast  its  influence  over  the 
study  of  history  that  this  is  more  possible  to-day  than  ever  before. 

We  have  come  to  realize  the  inviolable  sanctity  of  a fact,  and  our 


The  Original 
Unity 


The  First 
Great  Schism 


modern  “venture  of  faith”  is  to  dare  to  adjust  our  theories  to 
our  facts.  It  is  because  of  this  newly  acquired  boldness  for  truth 
that  we  have  made  the  somewhat  disconcerting  discovery  that  the 
heroes  of  the  past  were  not  always  heroic,  nor  the  villains  always 
so  villainous  as  sometimes  pictured.  And  so,  too,  the  holy  wars  of 
faith  which  our  ancestors  waged  so  freely  were  not  always  unmixed 
with  the  baser  elements  of  ambition  and  politics. 

Let  us  first  sketch  briefly  the  sad  story  of  Chi'istendom’s  divi- 
sions. For  the  first  thousand  years  of  the  Church’s  history,  with 
only  occasional  intermissions,  it  could  be  truthfully  said  that  Cath- 
olic, i.e..  Orthodox,  Christianity  was  substantially  one.  It  was  not 
so,  indeed,  from  the  standpoint  of  administration,  or  in  the  sense 
of  uniformity  of  custom  and  ritual.  Christendom  bore,  rather, 
the  appearance  of  a vast  but  loose  federation  of  national  or  racial 
churches  grouped  about  the  ancient  patriarchal  sees,  but  with 
several  notable  exceptions.  Its  unity  consisted  in  the  confes- 
sion of  a common  Catholic  Faith,  a common  historically  derived 
ministry,  and  a substantial  agreement  in  the  use  of  Sacraments. 
This  unity  was  practically  exhibited  in  the  free  intercommunion 
of  clergy  and  laity,  and  a carefully  observed  comity  between  the 
geographical  units  of  the  Church  Catholic. 

The  first  great  division  was  that  which  separated  the  East  and 
the  West.  The  dissensions  which  prepared  the  way  for  it  were  of 
long  standing,  but  the  climax  of  actual  and  permanent  schism 
was  not  reached  until  the  16th  of  July,  1054,  when  the  papal 
legates  placed  a writ  of  excommunication  upon  the  high  altar 
of  St.  Sophia.  The  causes  had  been  long  accumulating.  The  fore- 
most reason  commonly  assigned  was  a theological  distinction  with 
regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit ; a distinction,  however,  which  presents 
no  insuperable  difficulty  at  the  present  time  either  to  Eastern  or 
Western  theologians.  But  behind  this  and  other  alleged  reasons 
for  the  schism  lay  wide  divergences  of  temperament  and  intel- 
lectual bias,  and  the  old  leaven  of  unholy  ambition,  envy,  and 
jealousy.  These  were  the  real  causes,  upon  one  hand  and  the  other, 
and  the  causes  assigned  were  for  the  most  part  nothing  more  than 
concealing  masks. 

The  next  great  schism,  or  series  of  schisms,  were  those  which 

[ 6 ] 


took  place  in  the  sixteenth  century.  Abuses  had  crept  into  the  Schisms  of  the 
Western  Churches,  all  of  which  now  acknowledged  both  the  spir-  Sixteenth  Cen- 
itual  and  the  administrative  headship  of  the  Papacy.  Some  of  these 
abuses  concerned  the  popular  theology  of  the  day,  some  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Church;  but  those  most  keenly  resented  were  abuses 
of  ecclesiastical  administration.  The  Middle  Ages  had  also  wit- 
nessed great  political  developments.  The  old  feudal  system,  in 
which  the  king  and  his  barons  kept  each  other  in  mutual  check, 
was  transformed  into  an  aU  but  absolute  monarchy,  a kingly 
tyranny  over  nobility  and  commons  alike.  It  was  this  combined 
condition  of  ecclesiastical  and  political  disorder  which  character- 
ized the  latter  part  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

It  was  at  this  juncture  that  the  revival  of  classical  learning, 
partially  due  to  the  fall  of  Constantinople,  inaugurated  through- 
out Europe  an  intellectual  renaissance.  It  would  be  too  much  to 
attempt  a definition  of  this  movement;  but  we  may  say,  at  least, 
that  it  started  men  to  thinking  in  a new  fashion,  untrammelled  by 
the  customary  channels  and  conventions  of  thought.  The  scholars 
of  Europe  were  intoxicated  with  the  discovery,  and  immediately 
proceeded  to  reexamine  everything  mundane  and  supermundane 
in  the  light  of  the  “new  learning.”  Nature,  revelation,  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  political  constitution  alike  were  all  subjected  to  the  pro- 
cess ; and  out  of  it  came  three  notable  revolutionary  movements : 
modern  science,  an  ecclesiastical  convulsion  commonly  called  the 
Reformation,  and  the  rise  of  a new  spirit  of  nationalism,  which  in 
some  cases  resulted  in  the  birth  of  democracy. 

It  is  the  second  of  these  movements  with  which  we  have  to  Mingled 
do ; but  the  point  must  be  carefully  borne  in  mind  that  it  cannot  ^lotives 
be  isolated  from  the  other  movements  and  dealt  with  alone.  The 
ecclesiastical  and  the  political  disturbances  were  inextricably  com- 
mingled, and  it  is  frequently  impossible  to  determine  where  the 
religion  ended  and  the  politics  began.  And  for  the  very  reason  that 
politics  played  so  prominent  a part  in  the  Reformation,  both 
in  the  anti-papal  and  in  the  counter-reformation  within  the  Ro- 
man Communion,  it  followed  inevitably  that  the  baser  elements 
of  greed  and  personal  ambition  also  entered  into  the  combina- 
tion. And  so  it  is  that  we  must  scrutinize  our  Reformation  heroes, 

[ 7 ] 


The  Resultant 
Disunity 


A Reaction 


on  one  side  and  the  other,  with  more  than  ordinary  discrimina- 
tion. 

Western  Christendom  came  out  of  the  storm  broken  and  dis- 
united. Much  good  resulted;  but  the  one  great  obvious  fact  with 
which  we  are  concerned  at  present  is  that  the  venerable  unity  of 
the  Church  was  destroyed.  And  more  than  this,  the  very  terms 
and  conditions  of  that  traditional  unity  were  in  many  cases  wiped 
out.  Newly  formed  standards  of  Faith  came  largely  to  take  the 
place  of  the  ancient  Creeds ; in  many  quarters  the  historic  Min- 
istry, which  had  hitherto  served  as  the  witness  and  guardian  of 
unity,  was  abandoned,  and  new  conceptions  of  the  Sacraments  and 
of  the  nature  of  religious  authority  completed  the  breach.  Since 
the  Reformation  the  tendency  to  separation  has  produced  an  in- 
describable array  of  rival  sects  and  churches,  differing  from  one 
another  in  innumerable  points  of  Faith  and  Order.  For  when  the 
old  principle  of  unity  as  a divine  ideal  was  abandoned,  there  was 
nothing  left  to  check  the  centrifugal  forces  of  private  judgment 
and  extreme  individualism.  Any  one,  according  to  the  modern 
theory,  has  the  moral  as  well  as  the  external  right  to  withdraw 
himself  from  the  company  of  the  faithful,  and  establish  a rival 
sect  of  his  own  devising. 

Such  is  the  present  condition  of  Western  Christendom.  But  pre- 
cisely as  the  political  and  ecclesiastical  degeneracy  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  Middle  Ages  provoked  a double  revolution,  so  to-day, 
the  disgrace  of  Christian  disunity  is  awakening  in  our  minds  a 
sense  of  shame ; and  who  knows  but  that  it  will  provoke  a new 
and  better  reformation, — a reformation  which  will  retain  all  the 
positive  gains  of  the  sixteenth  century  movement,  and  add  to 
them  those  priceless  portions  of  the  Christian  heritage  which  were 
lost  or  forgotten  ? Preeminent  among  such  restorations  must  be, 
of  course,  the  recovery  of  the  Church’s  ancient  unity. 

For  the  past  two  decades  the  great  thought  of  the  reunion  of 
Christendom  has  been  germinating  in  the  hearts  and  minds  of 
the  leading  thinkers  of  all  Christian  bodies ; but  the  present  pro- 
posal for  a World  Conference  on  the  dividing  questions  of  Faith 
and  Order  is  an  evidence  that  the  germinating  stage  is  past.  The 
first  green  blade  of  a new  period  has  appeared,  a period  of  prac- 

[ 8 ] 


tical  efforts  for  discovering  the  clue  which  shall  lead  us  back  to 
unity;  and  in  God’s  own  time,  no  doubt,  the  blade  will  be  suc- 
ceeded by  the  ear,  and  then  by  the  full  corn  in  the  ear. 

The  watchword  of  the  present  stage  is  repentance : a deep  con-  The  Watch- 
viction  of  the  sin  of  dividing  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  a realization 
that  we  who  maintain  the  divisions  must  share  in  the  guilt.  The 
candid  historical  investigations  of  recent  years  are  throwing  a new 
and  saner  light  upon  the  conditions  and  religious  movements  of 
the  past.  Such  notable  scholars  as  Lord  Acton,  the  Abbe  Duchesne, 

Gairdner,  Hunt,  Pollard,  Gardiner,  McGiffert,  and  others,  repre- 
senting all  schools  of  thought,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  are 
dispassionately  setting  forth  the  truth  that  the  great  religious 
problems  of  the  sixteenth  century  might  have  been  solved  in  a 
different  fashion.  Without  in  any  wise  obscuring  the  sturdy  faiths 
and  heroisms  of  that  stormy  period,  they  are  showing  that  there 
is  no  one  religious  body  now  existing  which  is  not  compelled 
to  read  its  story  with  feelings  of  sadness  and  shame.  Our  fathers 
have  sinned,  and  we  have  entered  into  their  inheritance. 

Notable  as  it  was,  the  proposal  for  a World  Conference  upon  Preparatory 
the  dividing  questions  of  Faith  and  Order  was  by  no  means  an  Movements 
isolated  incident.  The  thought  itself  had  been  germinating  for 
many  years,  tentative  suggestions  had  already  been  made  in  vari- 
ous quarters,  and  the  way  had  been  prepared  by  the  successful 
launching  of  certain  movements  of  a more  or  less  kindred  nature. 

The  old  Evangelical  Alliance,  though  not  including  the  Roman 
Catholic,  Eastern,  or  Episcopal  Churches,  did  much  to  bring  to- 
gether the  divergent  bodies  of  Protestantism.  Within  a smaller 
sphere,  the  Pan-Presbyterian  Alliance  instilled  a conception  of 
unity  into  the  separated  branches  of  Presbyterianism  throughout 
the  world.  Within  our  own  country,  the  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America  has  familiarized  many  religious 
bodies  with  the  idea  of  Christian  Unity.  Its  most  fruitful  work  has 
been  that  of  achieving  a considerable  measure  of  cooperation  in 
the  solution  of  social  problems  in  the  larger  cities ; so  that  it  is  now 
a common  thing  for  the  leaders  of  all  religious  faiths  to  work 
together  in  perfect  harmony  for  the  betterment  of  the  public 
welfare.  (A  recent  example  of  this  was  seen  in  the  Chicago  Vice 

[ 9 ] 


The  Edin- 
burgh Confer- 
ence 


Commission,  including,  as  it  did,  priests  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
and  the  Episcopal  Churches,  leading  ministers  of  the  Protestant 
denominations,  and  Jewish  rabbis.) 

Both  in  Canada  and  the  U nited  States  there  have  been  signifi- 
cant movements  to  combine  certain  hitherto  separated  bodies  of 
Protestantism ; and  although  the  differences  between  those  bodies 
are  comparatively  small,  and  do  not  involve  any  of  the  greater 
principles  which  must  enter  into  a world  unity, these  combinations 
are  important  indications  of  the  general  trend  of  the  times. 

But  the  movement  most  intimately  related  to  the  one  which  we 
are  now  considering,  and  which  may  be  reckoned  as  its  logical 
antecedent,  was  the  “World  Missionary  Conference,”  which  met 
in  Edinburgh.  In  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  it  was  not  a true 
ecumenical  conference,  for  although  invited,  the  Roman  Catholic 
and  Eastern  Churches  did  not  see  their  way  clear  to  participate.  It 
came  nearer  the  ideal,  however,  than  any  other  assembly  of  modem 
times;  for  it  included  not  only  representatives  of  Protestantism, 
but  of  the  Anglican  Communion  as  well,  which,  after  the  Roman 
and  the  Eastern  Communions,  is  the  third  largest  ecclesiastical 
body  in  the  world.  This  was  made  possible,  however,  only  by  a care- 
ful delimitation  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed,  and  by  the  specific 
provision  that  no  question  of  faith  or  order  should  be  raised;  the 
practical  problems  of  missionary  extension  constituting  the  sole 
programme.  It  was  projected,  in  other  words,  as  a purely  technical 
congress.  But  the  spirit  of  unity  was  abroad,  and  the  artificiality 
of  the  restrictions  was  quickly  realized.  They  were  not  violated,  in- 
deed ; but  more  than  one  eloquent  voice  protested  that  the  problem 
of  missions  was  the  problem  of  unity;  that  as  Christ  Himself  fore- 
told, the  belief  that  God  had  sent  Him  was  dependent  upon  the 
absolute  unity  of  His  disciples.  It  was  this  conviction,  this  stone 
which  the  builders  of  the  Conference  rejected,  which  became  the 
head-stone  of  the  corner,  the  deepest  and  most  lasting  impression 
of  the  great  assembly.  And,  appropriately  enough,  the  very  body 
which  then  insisted  on  the  exclusion  of  questions  of  Faith  and 
Order  is  the  one  which  is  now  proposing  another  and  greater 
world  conference  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  discussing  them. 

What  are  the  motives  which  lie  behind  this  world  movement 

[ 10  ] 


for  the  reunion  of  Christendom  ? Is  it  simply  a product  of  senti-  The  Motives 
ment?  or  is  it,  perhaps,  nothing  more  than  a reflection  of  the  spirit  towards  Unity 
of  combination  which  characterizes  the  modern  commercial  world  ? 

If  the  movement  were  explainable  in  either  or  both  of  these  ways, 

it  would  justly  merit  our  suspicion ; but  it  is  not.  It  has  its 

economic  and  sentimental  aspects,  indeed;  but  deeper  and  vastly 

more  potent  than  these  is  the  overwhelming  conviction  of  the  will 

of  Christ,  the  Divine  Founder  and  Head  of  the  Church.  “Neither 

pray  I for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  The  Will  of 

through  their  word;  that  they  may  all  be  one;  as  thou.  Father,  (Christ 

art  in  me,  and  I in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us;  that 

the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.”  (St.  John  xvii, 

20,  21.)  And  it  has  remained  for  the  crusade  of  modern  missions 
to  sweep  away  the  ingenious  misinterpretations  of  these  and  other 
like  utterances  of  our  Blessed  Lord,  which  for  the  last  three  cen- 
turies or  more  have  blinded  men’s  minds  to  the  truth  of  His 
meaning.  The  missionaries  of  the  Cross  have  come  back  from  the  The  Influence 
front,  fi’om  the  advance  line  of  the  great  Christian  crusade,  and  Missions 
have  told  us  that  the  one  supreme  obstacle  to  the  conversion  of 
the  world  is  the  disunity  of  Christian  forces.  This  is  the  unanswer- 
able argument  which  is  flung  like  a challenge  into  their  faces: 

“ When  Christians  are  themselves  agreed  as  to  what  Christianity 
is,  then  we  will  hear  you.”  The  fundamental  problem  of  Christian 
missions  is  the  problem  of  Christian  Unity. 

And  as  we  look  about  us  upon  the  conditions  here  in  the  home-  Evils  of  Dis- 
land,  the  conviction  is  forced  upon  us  that  here  also  the  supreme 
obstacle  to  the  increase  of  Christ’s  religion  is  the  disunity  of 
Christian  people.  It  is  the  explanation  of  the  anomalous  fact  that 
even  in  this  so-called  Christian  nation  the  majority  of  the  people 
profess,  or  at  least  practise,  no  religion  whatever.  Great  numbers 
are  alienated  by  the  sad  spectacle  of  our  unhappy  divisions ; and 
the  necessity  of  maintaining  so  large  a number  of  organizations 
has  so  weakened  the  resources  of  the  Christian  body  that  its 
activities  are  seriously  impaired.  The  poorly  equipped  churches 
and  ill-paid  ministries  which  characterize  American  Christianity 
can  never  hofje  to  cope  efficiently  with  the  problems  confronting 
us.  It  is  because  of  our  divisions,  moreover,  that  we,  as  a Christian 

[ 11  ] 


nation,  present  the  amazing  spectacle  of  attempting  to  educate 
our  children  upon  a purely  secular  basis.  Granted  an  enforced 
system  of  public  instruction,  which  monopolizes  all  the  time  and 
energies  of  our  children  and  from  which  all  moral  and  religious 
instruction  are  rigidly  excluded,  what  likelihood  is  there  that  the 
rising  generation  will  be  adequately  trained  in  these  most  essential 
elements  of  education  ? The  answer  is  obvious  upon  every  hand ; 
but  the  Christian  forces  of  the  land  have  not  yet  seemed  to  real- 
ize what  a deadly  blow  this  strange  system  is  dealing  to  the  cause 
of  the  Christian  religion.  And  the  only  assignable  reason  for  it  is 
that  we  cannot  agree  among  ourselves. 

These,  then,  are  some  of  the  motives  and  conditions  which  ex- 
plain and  justify  the  great  movement  which  has  been  inaugurated. 
But  so  much  has  already  been  said  and  written  with  regard  to  this 
particular  phase  of  the  subject,  that  we  may  assume  a more  or 
less  general  assent,  and  pass  on  to  a consideration  of  some  of  the 
concrete  problems  which  remain  to  be  solved.  The  period  of  mere 
apology  has  long  since  ended,  and  we  have  entered  upon  a new 
era  of  constructive  effort. 

II.  Difficulties  to  be  Overcome 
The  difficulties  which  confront  the  cause  of  Christian  Unity  are 
legion,  and  nothing  is  gained  by  endeavoring  to  minimize  their 
obstructive  force;  but  discouragement,  on  the  other  hand,  must 
be  resisted  as  a species  of  treason.  The  chief  dangers  which  the 
cause  encounters  at  the  present  time  are  the  many  popular  mis- 
conceptions of  the  object  to  be  attained, — false  visions  of  unity 
which  would  lead  us  away  from  the  true  ideal.  For  a long  time, 
indeed,  the  conception  itself  was  compelled  to  struggle  with  a 
widely  spread  theory  that  competition  among  religious  bodies 
was  stimulating,  like  competition  in  trade.  Echoes  of  this  belief 
are  still  heard  ; but  no  religious  thinker  of  reputation  would  ven- 
ture any  more  to  defend  it.  A moment’s  sane  consideration  of  the 
actual  results  of  this  sort  of  competition  is  enough  effectually  to 
discredit  it. 

Unity  vs.  In-  A more  vigorous  enemy  of  the  cause  is  the  assertion  that 

oryanicUnion  Christian  people  may  attain  to  the  unity  which  the  Master  com- 

[ 12  ] 


manded  without  affecting  their  present  organic  relations.  This 
inorganic  sort  of  unity,  which  is  frequently  advocated,  is  con- 
ceived of  as  “unity  of  heart  and  purpose,”  a general  working  to- 
gether for  the  same  great  end,  mutual  charity  and  recognition. 

Its  watchword  is  “ unity  in  Christ,”  and  its  chief  practical  attain- 
ment is  the  free  interchange  of  pulpits,  and  the  broad  assertion 
of  interdenominational  equality.  But  the  theory  is  open  to  many 
criticisms,  both  theological  and  practical.  In  the  first  place,  it 
may  be  urged  that  it  does  little  or  nothing  to  remedy  the  actual 
evils  of  our  divisions:  the  curse  of  competition  and  the  sad  im- 
pairment of  Christian  resources.  It  glosses  over  the  glaring  fact 
that,  however  mutually  charitable  in  their  intercourse,  the  dif- 
ferent Christian  bodies  are  actually  presenting  widely  different 
conceptions  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  are  producing  equally 
different  types  of  Christian  character.  And  this,  to  the  think- 
ing non-Christian,  whether  in  our  own  or  in  foreign  lands,  is  a 
most  serious  indictment  of  the  whole  Christian  system.  Within 
the  Christian  body  itself,  its  inevitable  result  is  the  breaking 
down  of  all  sound  doctrine,  the  encouragement  of  religious  indif- 
ferentism,  and  a sweeping  away  of  the  few  remaining  vestiges 
of  Christian  discipline.  It  is  equally  unsound  from  a theological 
standpoint.  It  forgets  that  the  whole  point  of  our  Lord’s  injunc- 
tion was  that  we  might  prove  His  Divine  mission  by  our  union 
with  one  another,  by  the  unanimity  of  our  testimony.  And  it 
overlooks  the  profound  fact  that  a perfect  “unity  in  Christ”  must 
inevitably  produce  unity  among  ourselves.  “Things  equal  to  the 
same  thing  are  equal  to  each  other.”  The  Spirit  of  Christ  can 
never  tolerate  a division  in  the  Body  of  Christ. 

Church  federation,  so  called,  is  an  offshoot  from  this  theory.  It  The  Weakness 
is  a practical  effort  to  minimize  the  outward  effects  of  disunity,  of  Federation 
without  touching  the  source  from  which  they  spring.  Instead  of 
healing  the  schisms,  it  actually  tends  to  perpetuate  them  by  cloth- 
ing them  with  a theory  analogous  to  the  principle  of  the  fed- 
eration of  states.  Aside  from  the  perpetual  danger  which  must 
always  enshroud  a union  which  is  never  free  from  the  menac- 
ing spectre  of  ^mfederated  rights,  this  proposal  is  open  to  almost 
all  of  the  objections  which  we  have  just  urged  against  the  theory 

[ 13  ] 


Narrowldeah 
of  Unity 


Danger  of 
Haste 


from  which  it  springs.  If  the  distinction  may  be  allowed,  it  is 
a somewhat  precarious  condition  of  union,  but  it  is  not  unity.  At 
its  best,  it  is  nothing  more  than  a substitute,  and  carries  with  it 
no  guarantee  against  its  own  speedy  dissolution  in  case  of  a dif- 
ference of  opinion. 

Another  obstacle  in  the  way  is  our  tendency  to  narrowness  of 
vision.  So  different  are  the  extremes  of  teaching  and  practice, 
even  among  those  who  are  thoroughly  loyal  to  Jesus  Christ  and 
acknowledge  Him  as  God  and  Saviour,  that  we  sometimes  find  it 
difficult  to  conceive  of  their  ever  coming  together  in  any  sort 
of  unity.  So  it  is  that  many  would  have  the  future  unity  of  the 
Church  consist  of  a united  and  glorified  Protestantism,  with  Ca- 
tholicism left  out.  Others  would  have  it  the  reverse.  It  may  be, 
indeed,  that  the  great  final  unity  will  be  preceded  by  some  meas- 
ure of  local  unification  within  the  spheres  of  Catholicism  and  of 
Protestantism;  but  it  may  be  laid  down  as  a primary  principle 
that  any  ultimate  vision  of  unity  which  is  not  large  enough  to 
embrace  all,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  who  love  and  acknow- 
ledge the  Lord  Christ,  can  never  fulfil  the  Master’s  injunction. 
And  more  than  that : there  is  a grave  danger  in  such  narrow  con- 
ceptions of  unity,  even  in  the  preparatory  stages ; for  if  Catholi- 
cism and  Protestantism  solidify  separately,  without  consideration 
of  the  further  necessity  of  uniting  with  one  another,  the  out- 
come will  be  simply  a perpetuation  of  two  extreme  types  of  Chris- 
tianity. Nothing  could  be  more  disastrous,  or  more  insecure. 

Protestantism  needs  Catholicism,  and  Catholicism  needs  Pro- 
testantism. We  may  differ  in  our  estimate  of  their  relative  values; 
but  most  of  us,  surely,  would  be  willing  to  admit  that  neither 
one  nor  the  other  has  a supreme  monopoly  of  all  the  elements 
which  make  for  the  ideal  of  the  Christian  religion.  And  we  may 
assert,  further,  that  no  achievement  of  unity  which  is  not  en- 
riched by  all  the  manifold  varieties  of  Christian  truth  and  experi- 
ence which  are  now  held  separately  by  different  Christian  bodies, 
whatever  their  comparative  value  may  be,  can  ever  hope  to  main- 
tain itself  throughout  the  future  ages. 

There  is  but  one  other  danger  of  which  we  may  speak  at  the 
present  time ; and  that  is  the  danger  of  undue  haste,  of  impatience. 

[ 14  ] 


In  the  fire  of  our  zeal  and  the  largeness  of  our  vision  there  is  a 
possibility  of  moving  too  rapidly,  of  forcing  the  process  of  unity 
beyond  the  ability  of  the  many  elements  concerned  to  adjust 
themselves  to  the  change.  As  in  the  healing  of  a broken  bone,  the 
fractures  of  the  Christian  body  must  not  be  allowed  to  heal  until 
all  the  parts  are  properly  disposed.  Difficulties  of  ancient  stand- 
ing must  not  be  glossed  over  without  genuine  solution.  Inherited 
prejudices  must  be  fully  satisfied,  honest  convictions  must  receive 
all  due  regard.  If  upon  one  side  or  the  other  there  is  strong  ad- 
herence to  some  cherished  faith,  it  must  not  be  set  down  to  nar- 
rowness, but  must  be  dealt  with  in  the  spirit  of  love. 

Before  unity  can  come,  or  even  the  first  step  towards  unity, 
there  must  be  mutual  understanding.  The  present  duty,  there- 
fore, is  for  Christian  people  of  various  names  to  seek  a better 
knowledge  of  one  another,  and  of  their  differing  points  of  view. 
Free  interchange  of  thought  upon  the  various  aspects  of  the  great 
problem  is  a prime  necessity.  And  this  is  precisely  what  the  World 
Conference  upon  the  questions  of  Faith  and  Order  is  intended  to 
achieve. 


III.  Some  Principles  of  Unity 

Ready-made  schemes  of  Church  Unity  are  to  be  looked  upon  with 
suspicion ; for  whatever  their  plausibility,  they  underestimate  the 
magnitude  of  the  pi’oblem.  The  work  of  bringing  together  into 
one  the  scattered  members  of  the  great  family  of  Christ  is  such 
an  undertaking  as  no  one  mind  is  capable  of  achieving;  nor  is 
there  any  likelihood  that  it  will  be  accomplished  within  a single 
generation.  Like  the  construction  of  some  vast  mediaeval  cathedral, 
it  is  a work  of  faith ; and  many  minds  and  many  generations,  per- 
haps, must  enter  into  its  composition.  But  although  we  ourselves 
may  see  nothing  more  than  the  laying  of  the  foundations,  yet  the 
vision  of  the  final  triumph  of  unity  is  always  ours,  to  inspire  and 
strengthen  us  for  the  gi’eat  task. 

But  this  does  not  mean  that  we  should  hesitate  to  attempt  a 
solution  of  the  problem.  By  all  means  let  us  do  what  we  can.  It  is 
to  this  end,  therefore,  that  I venture  to  suggest  some  of  the  prin- 
ciples which  would  seem  to  be  involved  in  the  future  achievement 

[ 15  ] 


The  Present 
Duty 


Oreatness  of 
the  Problem 


Unity  does  not 
involve  Uni- 
formity 


How  Uni- 
formity came 
in 


Protestant 

Uniformity 


Anglican 

Uniformity 


of  unity.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  this  is  debatable  ground, 
and  entire  unanimity  of  opinion  can  hardly  be  expected.  But 
understanding  must  come  before  agreement. 

The  first  principle  to  be  suggested  is  that  unity  is  not  necessa- 
rily bound  up  with  uniformity.  It  is  possible  for  Christian  people 
to  achieve  the  very  highest  ideal  of  unity  in  Christ  and  unity 
with  one  another,  and  still  present  a considerable  measure  of  diver- 
gence within  certain  broad  spheres  of  Christian  life  and  activity. 
This  does  not  concern,  it  may  be  said  in  advance,  the  funda- 
mental unity  of  Faith  in  the  Divine  Founder  and  Head  of  the 
Church,  which  has  already  been  laid  down  as  the  basic  principle 
of  the  movement.  It  pertains  rather  to  such  matters  as  Christian 
worship  and  ecclesiastical  administration. 

This  principle,  it  may  be  asserted,  is  both  old  and  new : that  is 
to  say,  it  was  abundantly  recognized  in  the  centuries  prior  to  the 
Reformation ; during  the  Reformation  it  was  almost  completely 
lost,  and  it  is  only  now,  in  recent  years,  being  rediscovered.  Dur- 
ing the  bitter  conflict  of  the  Reformation  period,  the  contrary 
principle  of  uniformity  was  seized  upon  by  all  parties  as  a weapon 
of  offence  and.  defence.  Upon  the  Roman  side,  upon  the  Anglican 
side,  and  upon  the  Protestant  side,  absolute  uniformity  was  in- 
sisted upon:  uniformity,  not  only  of  fundamental  beliefs,  but  of 
modes  of  expression,  modes  of  thought,  and  modes  of  worship.  It 
was  because  of  this  iron-clad  insistence  that  the  Protestant  move- 
ment broke  up  into  so  great  a variety  of  rival  denominations. 
A difference  of  opinion  upon  some  minor  point  of  theological 
speculation  was  a matter  serious  enough  to  create  a permanent 
division.  The  English  Church  likewise  enforced  its  Acts  of  Uni- 
formity; and  also  the  Church  of  Rome.  With  regard  to  the  forms 
of  Christian  worship,  the  two  latter  communions  accomplished  a 
measure  of  uniformity  which  Christendom  had  never  before  known. 
Before  the  Reformation  the  Church  of  England  recognized  and 
allowed  several  different  liturgical  uses,  all  of  which  differed  from 
the  uses  which  were  in  vogue  upon  the  Continent.  And  within 
each  diocese  there  was  a considerable  freedom  in  providing  for 
the  changing  needs  of  the  people.  After  the  Reformation  all  Eng- 
land worshipped  by  the  hard-and-fast  rule  of  the  Book  of  Com- 

[ 16  ] 


mon  Prayer;  and  in  Scotland,  by  the  Book  of  Common  Order. 

Upon  the  Continent,  likewise,  the  different  national  churches 
had  had  their  own  national  or  racial  liturgies : as  the  Ambrosian, 
the  Gallican,  the  Mozarabic,  and  the  Roman.  After  the  Reforma-  Roman 
tion  the  Roman  liturgy  was  generally  enforced  upon  the  national  Uniformity 
churches  which  still  remained  within  the  Roman  obedience.  In 
other  words,  the  wide  and  safe  flexibility  which  characterized  the 
Catholic  Church  in  the  West,  in  matters  of  ritual,  and  which  in 
no  wise  interfered  with  its  unity,  gave  way  to  absolute  uniform- 
ity. And  though  expi-essed  in  different  fashion,  the  same  principle 
was  adopted  in  the  Protestant  denominations ; so  that  their  types 
of  worship  to-day  are  almost  as  unchanging  and  unchangeable  as 
in  the  case  of  the  more  liturgical  bodies  just  mentioned. 

It  may  be  that  there  was  something  natural  and  inevitable  in 
this  growth  of  uniformity  within  the  separated  sections  of  Chris- 
tendom. At  all  events,  let  us  not  be  hasty  in  condemning  it.  But 
however  appropriate  uniformity  may  be  under  such  conditions, 
it  never  was,  and  we  are  safe  in  affirming  that  it  never  can  be, 
a characteristic  of  Christendom  united.  The  leading  thinkers  of 
the  Anglican  Communion,  at  any  rate,  of  all  parties,  are  agreed 
upon  this  point.  Esteeming  their  own  liturgy  no  whit  less  highly 
than  in  the  past,  they  do  not  insist  upon  it  as  a condition  of  unity. 

They  believe  that  within  the  broad  confines  of  a united  Church  New  Anglican 
there  is  room  for  the  Roman  Liturgy,  for  the  Greek  Liturgy,  for  -Attitude 
the  Anglican  Liturgy,  and  for  no  liturgy  at  all — save  enough 
to  guarantee  the  integrity  of  the  Sacraments.  The  old  difficult 
question  of  the  form  of  worship,  in  other  words,  which  was  at 
one  time  a primary  cause  of  disunity,  they  are  willing  to  set  aside 
in  the  interest  of  a larger  and  more  primitive  liberty. 

Another  conception  to  be  unlearned  by  the  relearning  of  an  Unity  does  not 
older  one  is  that  which  confuses  unity  with  uniformity  of  ad-  involve  Um- 
ministration.  To  many  minds  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  one  Admin- 

. . istration 

united  world-wide  Church  apart  from  a highly  centralized  systern 
of  administration.  But  here  again  we  must  rediscover  the  old  fact 
that  in  the  ancient  unity  of  Christendom  uniformity  of  administra- 
tion was  unknown.  Even  in  Europe,  as  late  as  the  earlier  part  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  at  a time  when  the  theory  of  Papal  headship  was 

[ 17  ] 


Question  of  a 
Visible  Head- 
ship 


Comprehend 

siveness 


accepted  by  all  of  the  Western  Churches,  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  a uniform,  centralized  administration.  Rome  was  recognized,  in- 
deed, as  the  spiritual  head  of  Western  Christendom,  and  in  great 
matters  of  common  interest,  whether  in  the  defence  or  in  the 
propagation  of  the  Faith,  all  churches  accepted  her  guidance.  But 
in  matters  of  local  administration  the  various  national  churches 
were  practically  independent,  and  jealously  defended  themselves 
against  any  interference  from  without,  even  though  it  were  from 
the  Pope  himself. 

And  so,  in  the  future  reunion  of  Christendom,  it  will  not  be 
necessary  to  secure  a uniform,  centralized  administration.  The 
various  national  churches  may  well  be  left  to  administer  their 
own  affairs,  with  the  sole  limitation  that  there  shall  be  no  local 
interference  with  matters  of  common  or  universal  concern,  such 
as  the  common  Faith,  the  Sacraments,  or  the  Ministry.  These 
things  must  be  left  to  the  united  action  of  the  whole  Church. 
How  this  united  action  should  express  itself  is  a problem  still  to 
be  solved,  but  it  should  not  be  insuperable.  The  ancient  method 
of  great  general  councils  would  probably  be  the  most  feasible. 

Will  there  be  any  place  in  this  future  unity  for  a visible  head- 
ship of  any  sort  This  is  an  interesting  and  by  no  means  unim- 
portant question ; and  it  is  significant  that  more  than  one  mod- 
ern writer  of  distinctively  Protestant  principles  has  considered  it 
seriously.  Theoretically,  indeed,  there  is  no  valid  objection  to  such 
a headship,  and  there  are  some  advantages  in  its  favor. 

In  keeping  with  this  attitude  towards  uniformity  in  the  com- 
munity life  of  the  Church  is  the  new  conception  of  comprehen- 
siveness, which  is  the  most  characteristic  note  of  the  present  move- 
ment. In  all  proposals  of  unity  hitherto  advanced,  there  has  been 
a conscious  effort  to  discover  a minimum  platform  of  essentials 
upon  which  all  might  stand  together.  For  a long  time  this  prin- 
ciple of  finding  the  irreducible  minimum  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion was  unquestionably  assumed  by  all  who  were  interested  in 
Church  Unity. 

The  Committee  on  Unity  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1908, 
however,  enunciated  a new  and  radically  different  principle.  This 
principle  was  embodied  in  a striking  address  by  the  Bishop  of 

[ 18  ] 


Chicago  (now  Pi-esident  of  the  Commission  on  a World  Confer- 
'ence),  shortly  before  the  Cincinnati  Convention.  He  declared  that 
a religion  of  minimums  could  never  truly  pose  as  the  religion  of 
Jesus  Christ,  nor  could  it  hope  to  challenge  the  admiration  and 
allegiance  of  the  world.  For  his  part,  he  stood  for  a religion  of 
maximums : maximum  beliefs,  maximum  achievements,  and  maxi- 
mum manifestations  of  the  Spirit.  And  unity,  he  said,  is  to  be 
won  by  giving  rather  than  by  giving  up.  It  will  never  be  reached 
by  slenderness,  but  by  fullness.  Instead  of  approaching  the  great 
problem  upon  the  basis  of  excluding  everything  from  the  future 
united  Church  which  does  not  seem  to  pertain  to  the  inner  essence 
of  Christianity,  we  must  come  together  with  the  idea  of  mutually 
contributing  to  the  common  faith  and  to  the  common  life.  Let 
all  of  the  separated  parts  of  Christendom  pour  out  the  treasures 
of  their  several  inheritances  and  of  their  acquired  experience; 
and  let  them  equally  desire  to  receive  from  one  another  the  gifts 
which  they  do  not  already  possess.  Let  Catholicism  add  to  Pro-  Catholicism 
testantism  its  spirit  of  worship,  its  sacramental  life,  its  unwaver-  Protes- 

ing  faith,  and  its  rich  heritage  of  continuity  with  the  historic 

° ^ ''  . ‘plementary 

past.  And  let  Protestantism,  on  the  other  hand,  add  to  Catholi- 
cism  its  fearlessness  of  leai’ning,  its  stern  conception  of  individual 
responsibility,  and  its  emphasis  upon  personal  religion.  So  shall 
we  have  in  the  great  Church  of  the  future,  not  an  impoverished 
and  shadowy  form  of  Christianity  fenced  about  with  barriers  of 
exclusion,  but  a Church  which  is  enriched  with  all  the  wealth 
of  the  Christian  ages. 

This  does  not  mean,  it  is  needless  to  say,  that  it  will  be  a Church 
of  contradictions,  a reckless  comprehension  of  faiths  and  anti- 
faiths; for  no  mere  negation  will  enter  into  its  composition.  Lieb- 
nitz  says  somewhere,  “Most  scholars  are  right  in  what  they  affirm, 
but  wrong  in  what  they  deny.”  Disregarding  our  denials,  therefore, 
we  shall  hope  to  find  unity  upon  the  basis  of  positive  beliefs. 

There  is  one  other  important  principle  which  I would  mention  Continuity 
in  conclusion,  not  only  because  of  its  supreme  theoretical  impor- 
tance, but  because  of  its  practical  bearings.  It  is  the  principle  of 
continuity.  We  have  already  emphasized  the  truth  that  no  scheme 
of  unity  is  worth  considering  unless  it  is  broad  enough  to  include 

[ 19  ] 


all  who  are  loyal  to  our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  both  Pro- 
testants and  Catholics.  But  we  may  go  a step  further  than  this 
and  affirm  that  no  scheme  of  unity  is  worth  considering  which  is 
not  long  enough  to  include  the  historic  past,  the  living  present, 
and  the  prophetic  future  in  the  one  pei’petual,  organic  Kingdom 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  imperishable  continuity  of  the  original  Christian  body, 
manifested  in  history  and  guaranteed  by  our  Lord’s  own  promise, 
is,  for  nine-tenths  of  Christendom,  already  a cherished  article  of 
faith.  Nor  is  it  merely  an  object  ^faith,  for  it  is  equally  a stimu- 
lus to  faith.  To  those  who  conceive  of  the  Church  as  not  merely 
an  organization  of  the  present,  but  as  actually  continuous  and 
identical  with  the  Church  of  the  Upper  Room  at  Jerusalem,  — 
the  Church  which  was  founded  by  Christ  and  His  apostles, — 
there  is  a ground  for  confidence  and  an  impulse  to  faith  which 
cannot  lightly  be  estimated.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  Church  is 
conceived  of  as  a living  witness  of  the  Resurrection  ;ybr  she  was 
in  Jerusalem  at  the  time,  and  conversed  with  her  risen  Lord,  and 
she  is  hi  our  midst  to-day!  Her  faith  is  no  mere  matter  of  copied 
and  recopied  documents,  but  of  living  experience. 

The  Will  of  The  relation  between  unity  and  continuity,  moreover,  is  close 
Christ  and  vital.  In  the  first  place,  continuity  is  essential  to  that  complete 
unanimity  of  the  Christian  witness  which  the  Master  asked  for  in 
His  prayer,  that  all  His  disciples  may  be  one;  that  the  world  may 
believe  that  God  has  sent  Him.  The  unity  which  He  desires  is  not 
simply  a unity  of  the  first  century,  nor  of  the  tenth,  nor  the  twen- 
tieth, but  of  all  the  Christian  ages;  the  united  and  harmonious 
witness  of  ten  thousand  generations.  To  this  end,  therefore,  we 
must  bind  the  present  to  the  past,  and  both  of  them  to  the  future. 
Essential  to  In  the  second  place,  the  principle  of  continuity  is  essential 

Permanent  maintenance  of  unity  when  once  achieved;  and  in  this 

Unity  respect  it  involves  both  the  outward  order  and  the  inward  faith. 

What  superiority  can  any  one  generation  claim  over  any  other, 
especially  when  it  is  a generation  of  the  past?  Obviously  none.  If 
unity  were  accomplished,  therefore,  upon  a basis  of  purely  twen- 
tieth century  ideals,  what  assurance  would  there  be  that  a self- 
important  twenty-first  century  would  not  completely  overturn 

[ 20  ] 


it?  Quite  as  obviously,  none.  A unity,  in  other  words,  which  ap- 
peals simply  and  solely  to  the  wisdom  of  a single  generation  must 
always  be  a precarious  unity.  It  is  a case  of  one  against  an  ever 
increasing  number.  But  the  principle  of  continuity  teaches  us  that 
we  should  base  our  edifice  not  only  upon  the  wisdom  of  the  fleet- 
ing present,  but  upon  the  united  wisdom  of  all  the  Christian 
centuries.  Wherever  we  find  the  golden  thread  of  continuity  run- 
ning down  through  the  centuries,  whether  of  order,  or  of  faith,  or 
of  worship,  we  may  rest  assured  that  it  draws  its  life  from  causes 
and  demands  which  are  in  their  nature  universal.  And  if  we 
would  build  an  enduring  edifice,  therefore,  we  must  see  to  it  that 
these  priceless  threads  of  continuity  are  woven  into  the  fabric 
of  its  walls.  This  does  not  mean  a craven  submission  to  the 
dead  hand  of  the  past,  but  a wise  recognition  of  those  religious 
elements  which  are  either  universal  in  their  nature  or  rest  upon 
universal  causes.  Of  such  a sort  are  the  Faith  and  Order  of  the 
Historic  Church;  and  for  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  we  must 
stand  for  an  outward  and  visible  continuance  with  the  mighty  past. 

If  the  future  unity  of  the  Church  can  have  the  unity  of  the  ages 
behind  it,  it  can  boldly  await  the  oncoming  centuries,  however 
self-important  they  may  be.  Instead  of  one  against  an  ever  increas- 
ing number,  it  will  be  an  ever  increasing  number  against  one.  Con- 
tinuity with  the  future  can  only  come  from  continuity  with  the 
past.  “Continuity”  is  simply  another  word  for  continuous  unity. 

Such,  then,  in  brief  outline,  are  some  of  the  conditions  which  Summary  of 
seem  to  define  the  great  unity  of  the  future,  the  ideal  for  which  Condition 
we  are  laboring.  (1)  Though  based  upon  one  Holy  Faith,  and 
drawing  its  life  from  one  Divine  Head,  it  will  not  be  charac- 
terized by  outward  uniformity  of  worship,  or  by  a centralized 
uniformity  of  administration.  (2)  It  will  be  a broad  comprehen- 
sion of  every  positive  aspect  of  Christian  faith  and  experience; 
not  an  impoverished  and  shadowy  form  of  Christianity,  but  a 
Church  which  is  enriched  with  all  the  wealth  of  the  Christian  ages. 

(3)  The  unity  for  which  we  pray  is  not  simply  a unity  of  the  pres- 
ent generation,  but  of  all  generations;  not  merely  of  a cross-sec- 
tion of  Christendom,  but  of  its  whole  length  and  breadth,  from 
the  Day  of  Pentecost  to  the  Day  of  Judgment. 


